Page 2137 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
flooding, and bushfires. The information must address impacts on the local microclimate and how it will avoid contribution to the urban heat and positively contribute to urban cooling measures.
Additionally, the EIS must address the contribution the proposal will make to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting the legislated target for zero net emissions in the territory by 2045 at the latest.
Preparation of the EIS must consider relevant sections of the following ACT government policies: the ACT climate change strategy 2019-25 and Canberra’s living infrastructure plan, cooling the city. Depending on the nature of the particular development proposal, climate change and air quality may be identified as a particular environmental theme which requires specific risks to be addressed. The recent scoping documents for the Yarralumla brickworks project are an example of the matters that I have just discussed.
Notwithstanding the above, the government supports in principle the clause and will be moving technical amendments to enable regulations to set the threshold at which that would be required.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.49): This clause covers the third way that this bill addresses climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions would be added as a trigger to environmental impact statements. It would mean that high-emitting development proposals get the scrutiny they need to ensure that they will be compatible with net zero emissions in 2045.
Minister Gentleman will be moving an amendment that will clarify the wording around this clause, and the Greens will be supporting Minister Gentleman’s amendment. I point out that I am afraid that this also shifts the trigger level of emissions to a regulation and I sincerely hope that this does not have the impact of watering down what I am trying achieve. I am taking the minister on trust that this will not happen. Overall, I am hopeful that the amendment is worthy and I will be supporting it.
MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.50): We are comfortable that there is a relatively sensible middle ground that is forged by Mr Gentleman’s amendment, so we will not be opposing it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24.
MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.51): This is consequential on clause 23, which we have just dealt with, so I recommend that people vote for this one as well.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video